DHANALAKSHMI BANK vs M/S. MYNAH INDUSTRIES LTD on 31 August 2019

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL II, KARNATAKA

AT BENGALURU**

Dated this the 31^st day of August, 2019

**Present: Shri K Ravindran Nair

Hon`ble Presiding Officer

Incharge-DRT-II**

**T.A.No.251/2017

(O.A.NO.2155/2015-DRT-I)**

**BETWEEN:**

**Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.,**

Branch office at No.13

CRN Chambers, Kasturba Road

Bengaluru-560 001

**Represented by its Manager**

**Mr.Sunny George**

** ...APPLICANT**

**AND:**

1. 1) **M/s Mynah Industries Ltd.,**

'Vajras', No.1445, 1^st Floor

28^th Main, South End (A) Cross Jayanagar 9^th Block East

2. 2) **Sri Prashant Boorugu**

S/o Sri Ramesh Babu Boorugu

R/at: No.B-04, Oak yard Apartments

38^th Cross, 'C' Main Road, 9^th Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 041

3. 3) **Smt.Sarita Boorugu**

W/o Sri Prashant Boorugu

R/at: No.B-04, Oakyard Apartments

38^th Cross, 'C' Main Road, 9^th Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 041

4. 4) **Sri S.Gajendran**

Father's name not known

R/at No.141, Sriramnagar Colony

Ward No.15, Chennai-600 113

2T.A.251/2017 in O.A.No.2155/2015**5) Sri Yadvinder Kumar Jhamb**

S/o Sri Krishnan Ram Jhamb

R/at No.F-3, PSR Residency

Block No.1, No.38, 5^th Main

Krishnappa Block, Ganganagar

....**DEFENDANTS****Counsels on record/appeared for:****Applicant : Sri V.B.Ravi Shankar****D1 to 4 : Ex-parte****D5 : Sri Vishwanath G.N (WS not filed)****FINAL ORDERS**

The present Application came to be registered on 12.10.2015 on the basis of jurisdictional transfer and renumbered as Transfer Application No.251/2017 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.15,67,82,936/- (Rupees fifteen crore sixty-seven lakh eighty-two thousand nine hundred and thirty-six only) from the Defendants together with interest and cost.

2. The case of the applicant bank is that 1^st defendant is a company represented by defendant No.2 had approached the applicant bank for financial assistance along with defendant No.3, who stood as guarantor. The applicant bank considered their request and sanctioned term loan of Rs.20,00,00,000/- vide sanction letter dated 19.04.2013. Defendants have

executed necessary and requisite loan related documents in favour of the applicant bank. After availing the loan, the defendants failed to regularize the loan account and also failed to pay the installments, they did not come forward to repay the balance outstanding. Hence, the O.A was filed and now numbered as TA.251/2017. The applicant bank has produced the documents in favour of its case viz., loan application, sanction intimation, DP notes, master credit agreement, deed of guarantee, confirmation letters, general hypothecation agreement and certified copy of account extract etc.

3. Further the defendants agreed to repay the above loan with variable rates of interest, as applicable from time to time as per the directions of the Head Office/Central Office of the Applicant Bank and penal interest in case of default and keep the account regular by paying installments as and when due to the satisfaction of the Applicant Bank, as detailed in the OA by the Applicant Bank.

4. The defendants after utilizing the entire loan proceeds for the above said purpose have failed to make the repayments of the loan dues as agreed and they have not serviced the

interest thereon as per the terms and conditions agreed by them and became chronic defaulters and hence, the recovery process is initiated against the defendants to recover the dues.

5. In the light of these factors, it is contended by the Applicant Bank that, Defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,67,82,936/- (Rupees fifteen crore sixty-seven lakh eighty-two thousand nine hundred and thirty-six only) .

6. After filing the OA, summons were sent through RPAD same was served on defendant No.1, other summons were returned with postal shara as 'left' and 'no such person in this address' and thereafter paper publications were made, even then defendants 1 to 4 remained absent and hence, they were placed ex parte. Whereas, defendant No.5 appeared through his advocate, but in spite of sufficient opportunities written statement has not been filed.

7. To prove the case of the Applicant Bank, its Chief Manager, Mr. Sooraj T.R, has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and same was considered as evidence of AW-1 and marked at Ex. A-1 and list of documents came to be marked as Ex.A-2 and 16 documents came to be marked as Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-18.

1. 8. No evidence on behalf of the Defendants.

2. 9. Arguments of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/applicant bank heard and perused the records of the case.

3. 10. Following points arise for my consideration:

1. a) Whether Plaintiff/applicant bank proves its case as contended in the plaint/application?

2. b) What order?

4. 11. For the following reasons, I answer the above referred points in the following manner:

**REASONS**

1. 12. Mr. Sooraj T.R, Branch Manager of the applicant bank came to be examined as AW-1. His affidavit by way of evidence reiterates the facts pleaded in the plaint and his affidavit is also corroborated by the above referred Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-18 which clearly establish the case of the applicant bank to allow the present TA. Added to this, the defendant No.5 in spite of entering appearance did not chose to file his written statement and also not led any evidence to contest the matter and rebut the claim of the applicant bank. Whereas in this case defendants 1 to 4 remained absent, hence it is to be construed

that the defendants have admitted the entire case pleaded by the applicant bank as sought in the present TA.

13. Consequently, Interim order of attachment before judgment and injunction dated 07.12.2015 passed in IA No.4840/2015 against the properties of the defendants is made absolute.

14. Therefore, for these reasons, present TA is to be allowed with costs as sought by the applicant bank.